During the launch of the Ford Fiesta 1.0L Ecoboost, multiple outlets ran articles parroting Ford’s PR line about the lack of an automatic transmission. Apparently, Ford declined to offer an automatic or Powershift dual-clutch gearbox on the 3-cylinder Fiesta since a two-pedal option would run counter to the 1.0L’s stated mission of being both fun to drive and good on gas.

Not so, says a supplier source. According to them, there were plans to offer such a combination, but the combo was axed due to “customer expectations” not being met. What does that mean? The performance, ride and NVH characteristics were far below what was considered acceptable, and therefore the decision was made to offer the 3-cylinder with 3-pedals, and no fewer.

Yep, the 3-pedal only route would have been perfect for a Mazda2 ‘if’ they had kept the additional cost for the 1.0L EB down to an extra $500. ‘That’ would have been a nice, small, hot ticket ride and they’d have sold a bunch of them.

I work in the parts department at a large, multi-line dealership that happens to include Ford. And before you label me a “Ford fanboy” I don’t even own a Ford, to me they’re just another car on the road.

You could easily find similar faults to the ones you singled out with just about any other car on the road. Collapsing headliners? I’m not saying it hasn’t happened, but I’ll have to take your word for it. I’ve never once had anybody ever call or come in here looking for a headliner or any sort of headliner clips or retainers whatsoever.

Panel gaps? Let me tell you something about panel gaps. One of our car lines is the current consumer and media darling, Hyundai. The Hyundai reps came in here one day in their suits and ties and went on and on and on about how tight the panel gaps were on all the new Hyundais. “True sign of quality and craftsmanship” they said. You know how often we get Hyundais back in the shop within the first few weeks or months of ownership with people complaining about all the squeaks coming from those air-tight panel gaps? Daily. That is, of course, on top of the countless Hyundai “campaigns” (they don’t call them “recalls”) that they can’t even provide us the parts for. Exploding glass roofs on Velosters? Yep, we got ’em! Faulty brake switches? Got those too. Our service holding area looks like a late-model Hyundai graveyard with all the cars waiting for recal– excuse me, campaign parts. Enterprise and Avis sure love us though!

“Collapsing headliners? I’m not saying it hasn’t happened, but I’ll have to take your word for it. I’ve never once had anybody ever call or come in here looking for a headliner or any sort of headliner clips or retainers whatsoever.”

It was a fairly widespread complaint, especially around roof openings on certain models. I’m surprised as a supplier of Ford parts that you haven’t heard of or supplied 3M’s Dual Lock adhesive strips which Ford recommends to use liberally to resolve this issue.

I worked in Ford parts exclusively from 1994 until about 4 or 5 years ago, now I do Ford and also several other manufacturer’s parts as well. Most of my career was spent on the back (shop) counter and in management, and I have never seen a falling headliner on any late-model Ford nor have I handed out any 3M anything to stick them back in place. Again, I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but it’s obviously not the pandemic it’s been made out to be.

There’s some irony involved in recycling that tagline. How many times are we supposed to believe that they’ve finally changed? A year ago, they still hadn’t figured it out. The Focus rental I drove with an automatic felt like it was wounded. Considering that the quality scores of their new product just get worse and worse, it seems hard to believe that they’re in the process of improving. More likely, the loss of Mazda’s help developing cars means the end of Ford cars being recommended for their dependability.

It’s a shame, really. Right before the new One Ford models arrived, the Fusion, Escape, and Focus were reliable and competent. The new models bring extroverted styling and better interior materials, but unnecessary drivetrain complexity (underperforming ecoboost and Powershift transmissions that don’t meet American expectations) are getting in the way. Seems like Ford started overreaching a bit.

It’s been Milk & Honey for Ford for a good (approximate) 22 months or so, with Mulally being praised in the same light that a legendary leader with a lifetime legacy would be.

What might just happen, though, given the lag time between consumer honeymoons with their shiny new cars and trucks and the bitter divorces caused by irreconcilable differences with those vehicles (and brands), is that the Ford experience is going to burn a lot of “conquest” buyers as things unfold over the next several years, and the full extent of the quality control woes and reliability issues fully blossom.

More “new gen” Ford vehicles, especially those with the ecoboost motors and PowerShift transmissions, are being stamped with the dreaded black circle of fail by Consumer Reports reliability rankings, and then CR pours salt into the wounds by speaking of assembly-fit/finish issues “worse than they’ve seen in new cars” and “dramatically” lower fuel economy in the real world than what Ford claims.

Even the HARD CORE Ford pickup truck fanboys are complaining more loudly and consistently than ever about many issues with the F-Series, from torque converter issues, to ecoboost woes, shimmying at highway speeds or above, dreadful fuel economy (particularly when towing anything heavier than a hummingbird), fuel starvation and/or limping-stumbling under even heavy throttle, etc.

This has a precedent in Chrysler’s 1957 Forward Look model line. They went from producing stodgy but well engineered cars to dramatically styled but slapped together junk in one model year. The sharp demand for their beautiful new models only led to even worse quality, as they ramped up production. They never really recovered from their success in selling people badly built cars that year.

Market leadership can be admired and admonished – just look at F stock… Personally i like what Ford is doing, among my stable ’tis the spunky and funky neo sports car that is an ’13 2.0 EB Escape.

Those FoE engineered cars are really amazing to a long time Ford guy, it’s a tactical flare that en-habited the ’78-’80 Fiesta, as anyone who had one will tell you what a fun and dependable car they were.

Thank you Mulalley for bringing back that overachiever Euro essence that is FoE! Although I can afford to drive “better” the Fiesta ST is a really cool little car that Honda does not do right now.

“As for your body panel gaps, unless you’re referring to the early Fusions I’ve seen, you are hitting the crack pipe hard.”

Check out the tailgate on the Explorer. Look where the body line meets up with the tail lamp. I don’t think I’ve seen one where the body lines matched up evenly on both sides. This was unfortunately deemed a “characteristic”.

Have they finally gotten the weather seals on the rear doors of the Taurus/MKS to keep dust out yet BTW?

I sat behind a new Escape in traffic today. The lateral gap on the tailgate was half an inch, on the right less than a eighth. Surely it can be centered at time of assembly? You don’t see mistakes like this on a Hyundai Santa Fe (which I sat behind 10 minutes later – superb finish of a bland product).

Reminded me of a 1957 Dodge panel van our local grocer used to drive delivering food in rural areas back in the early sixties. Nothing fitted on that thing. I think the factory motto was: if all the the screws and nolts are used up and nothing actually falls off – Ship it!

No because I know the characteristics of NVH of the brand. There is truth to his statement. Powershift DPS6 – enough said. My father’s escape had poor fitting d pillar trim (think 1.5″ gaps to the headliner – it was sickening), I told him to take it back to the dealer to fix that along with 5 other issues I identified – you know why? Because I care.

If the customer doesn’t utilize warranty work, the plant isn’t impacted thus the plant doesn’t fix the issue. Everyone I know that has fit issues I tell them to take it to the dealer and make it right. Some people just don’t care. Hell, I made a friend take a fiesta in because I could see the water jet cuts on the headliner looking out of the vehicle.

Which means it’ll never sell in any appreciable quantities if offered here in the States…just too few takers of manual tranny vehicles, much less when they hear it has 3 cylinders. Still, I’d be willing to test drive it to see how “fun to drive and good on gas” it really is…

Probably has something to do with the transmission mounts on the powershift not being able to filter the extra vibrations associated with the 3 cyl. Probably too expensive to re-engineer, and they don’t expect to sell many of the 3 cyl anyway…Just speculation.

Its my understanding that there will be no 3 banger in the US for now. The 4 cyl turbo ST is still only in manual which I think is fair given the purpose of such cars. IMO it keeps the vehicle pure. The biggest challenge the Fiesta will have is the small $2000 increase to get a much nicer and more powerful focus st, which is a very fun car for being wrong wheel drive.

I just priced out a Fiesta ST and it maxes out at about $24,500 with the Recaro package. A Focus ST won’t be found for under $29,000 at a dealership… still missing NAV options. The price difference isn’t as negligable as $2000.

Ecoboost has become a powerful brand. Reminds me of the “That thing got a Hemi” tagline from last decade. The Hemi was an upgrade option in almost every vehicle that had it, but is one of the less costly engines to produce.

Athough in this case, the Ecoboost engines are most certainly more costly to produce than the naturally aspirated powerplants they supposedly replace.

Everything I’m reading points to the 3 pot Fiesta coming to the US later in 2013 as a 2014 model. Estimates are $1000 premium for the 3 cylinder engine, and yes…only a 5 speed manual for now. Reviews of the Euro-spec variant are generally positive regarding the experience of driving one. Proof will be in actually driving one on these shores. Still, the manual-only offering will hurt any sales success here (though I personally like the idea)…

I test drove a regular Fiesta when we were looking. The really cheap price was intriguing, but the car was awful. Half of that was the anemic engine and transmission. The other half was the very cramped cabin, driving position, etc.

Since then I’ve sat in (but not driven) the Spark. I found it to be a much better fit. Waiting for pretty much the comparative drivetrain to debut in that, and might pick one up used in 3-5 years. We could use a small very-fuel efficient vehicle in our fleet.

Oh, I really liked the Fiesta. For a B-class, the drivetrain was far from anemic, the driving position and seat comfort were excellent, it was as quiet and stable on the freeway as my Jetta. Quite impressed.

But you’re right about the tight cabin. This car shouldn’t have 4 doors, the back seat is useless.

We obviously much have different benchmarks for cars; we have a Jetta too, 01′. And I don’t find that car that great either….

The only small-ish FWD car I’ve found comfortable and acceptable was the Pt Cruiser I use to have. Decent ride, nice and very comfortable seat and position. The drivetrain was a bit of a let down, but the rest of the car was great compared similar vehicles (including price range) on the market at the time (2001).

I also drove the Focus the same day as the Fiesta. I found that a bit more acceptable, almost livable, but then I drove base model V6 Mustang…. and bought it.

Yeah…the base V-6 Mustang (assuming you can lay off of the options/extras) makes one heck of an argument when it comes to price/performance. Given the extra premium on the 1.0L Fiesta (not to mention the lack of AT…although I personally prefer a manual) will make it a tough sell without some discounting.

A tad less then 23k for the Mustang (before taxes and all of that great stuff).

The Fiesta I saw on the lot, but had been sold, was $13.2K. A decent value, but the other ones on the lot were loaded with options, and were $17-19k!! Looked at the Focus, once again one sold base model car, around $17k. Most other were pushing over the $20k mark.

We wanted something simple, and neither one of us cared for, or could figure the, the base radio in the FWD offerings (and we’re in our 20’s). Then we got in the Mustang. It was perfectly plainly packaged, drove so much better then the other two, and cost just a few grand more. What a great car, a hell of a bargain, and that’s not even taking into count the 305hp under the hood; just the car itself.

I’m still interested in the Fiesta, but I won’t play more then $10k for one. Looks like it’ll be pretty rare though. Going to have to give one a test drive either way.

Ford engineers must be kicking themselves in the rear for not going the Mazda 2 way by providing a normal automatic instead of this mess (hello, Smart car) did they not read all the negatives about that mess of a transmission?

Ford seems to be gunning for a really small niche with this 3 cylinder Fiesta. The 1.6 4-pot is peppy enough and returns fully competitive fuel economy. The turbo ST is for those wanting more performance. The 3 cylinder is for…who?

Perhaps there are enough enthusiasts who would pony up $1000 for a torquier Fiesta, but it seems odd to further parse your entry in a fairly low-selling segment.

I would have very likely purchased a Focus OR the Fiesta Ecoboosted offerings IF allowed an automatic.
I have other members of the family that do not wish a stick…nor do many today who live in heavy stop n go traffic.
Enough already about the purity of standard trans…the world has progressed far beyong the stick.
Even consider the GTI is offered with an auto and this greatly expands the consumer base.

GTI is not offered with automatic, but with the VW’s dual clutch transmission. Same idea as Ford’s PowerShift, but executed much, much better. But I agree with you; it’s still nowhere as smooth as regular 5- or 6- speed automatic with torque converter. I don’t understand this latest obsession with dual clutch auto-manuals. I was on the verge of buying Golf TDI until i learned it had DSG (i didn’t want it with manual), and one that requires $450 service every 30K miles. Unless one is a wannabe racer, that stomps on accelerator at every intersection, what’s the point of DSG? Give me a smooth shifting automatic over DSG anytime.

Generally speaking, the DSG *should* return both better acceleration and better fuel economy due to the lack of a power-sapping fluid coupling as with a standard automatic, which only makes a direct connection with the drive wheels when the lockup clutch engages (or disengages, however you look at its function), which, to the best of my knowledge only occurs in the top gears of most TC automatics I’ve driven, and/or above a certain speed (~40mph).

I agree that the DSG is not the smoothest transmission in the world as set up in the Golf TDI, but for whatever reason, it is much, much smoother in the GTI/GLI/CC in my experience.

Some of the modern torque converter autos are very good. They switch gears very fast and they use the lockup clutch very quickly.

The Ford unit just is not that good.. their DSG tranny isn’t as good as german stuff that both Chrylser and the Germans use..

Their 6 speed autos aren’t as good either. Ford is painting this as well the car wouldn’t perform with an auto transmission. It actually would – they just don’t make a good enough transmission to pair with that engine..

I dunno, having driven a MKV Jetta with a 2.5/6-speed auto and a 2.0TDI/6-speed DSG back to back, i’m gonna have to disagree with you on the DSG not being as smooth. The shifts are imperceptible except for the change in exhaust note, there’s no “jump” at all. Of course putting aside how much better of an engine the diesel is than the gas five-cylinder. The 6-speed conventional auto really neuters the 5-cylinder’s character and power; the DSG is the much better choice on the diesel. It seems to suit it. But opinions are like bellybuttons, right?

The 1.0L will add $1000 to the price, and the Powershift would add another $1000. I don’t see too many U.S. buyers (if any) paying an additional $2000 for fewer cylinders to get a possible 45MPG. It’s simply a matter of price/benefit.

Agreed. The 1.0L Ecoboost is supposedly an earnest attempt to save the economy car in its current guise, with non-hybrid powertrain and MSRP well below $20K. We already know Ford elected to use an iron block b/c the weight savings weren’t sufficient to justify aluminum. Now they are offering the 1.0L Ecoboost as manual only.

Current economy cars like the Versa CVT and Spark manual are already CAFE compliant for the next half decade, with much cheaper components, so 1.0L Ecoboost Fiesta looks like a longer term plan, but I have no idea how they plan to get this vehicle to 43mpg combined. Perhaps they are counting on CAFE adjustments or CAFE credits for other preferred EPA technology. Who knows?

Yo Toy boy you just make that up? My own boys’ got a 5m Fiesta, you are clueless about the build…son, they are tight, good handling, refined little cars….Yota got nothin on this little number, boy, This FoMoCo hate is outta-line on these fine little cars, that’s a fact..

Two years to this date my wife took delivery of a Magenta 5door Fiesta with the Powershift transmission she got as a part of a new lease program for college students.

In its first month, the car started to leak between the tranny and engine–but the Ford dealers in my area were confused as to whether the fluid was from the transmission or the engine. The best they could come up was “the engine or transmission was made wrong and they’re not coupling together right.” Then the fluid started to smoke and the new car reeked of burning plastic.

Not long after that, the Powershift started to clatter and sputter. Missed shifts, wrong shifts, stalls from rolling starts–an ever growing clatter from somewhere in the engine bay no expert Ford tech could recognize.

Ordered new tranny, backlogged for MONTHS. Called Ford, told “that’s what you get for buying a brand new car” by the customer service phonemonkey.

Eventually new transmission comes in. Dealer botches install, destroys right CV axle. Gives us the keys to a “fixed” car with broken CV axle and sputtering, rattling trasmission. It’s as if they have done nothing but make the car worse.

Transmission isn’t fixed, but Ford dealer now tells us that car is working properly and we’re lying if it isn’t. On the way home a piece of HVAC ducting falls out from driver’s footwell. Whatever they did to “flash” the software has now killed the keyless remote operation of the trunk.

After two more weeks of driving with stuttering, jerking, stalling powershift we return to dealer who now accuses us of making up problems and that “they’re losing money” from our service visits to fix car. Shop mechanic tapes HVAC tubing under dash, drives car for 5 miles, says it’s fine. Returns it filthy and reeking of beer flatus.

Take car to another dealer, they tell us that the transmission wasn’t flashed right, or flashed with the wrong software, or didn’t take the flash. They spend the next two days tinkering with the transmission software, return the car to us less bad but still awful. They tell us to drive it for a few hundred miles so it can “learn” how we drive and shift normally–or whatever.

Lemon law paperwork finally came through after that and Ford bought back the piece of crap.

Who exactly is it marketed to?
less cyclinder + less displacement can only go so far before fuel economy suffers worse then a bigger engine.

I can see this vehicle selling to hipsters if it has “3 cyclinders” plastered all over the side of the car, but otherwise this is idiotic at best.

I believe their would be a much better market for a 3.0L 4 cycl, being able to get respectable power and just as good gas mileage. The push for smaller engines is baffling, having an engine at 3500 rpm all the time to keep up is not going to get good fuel economy. You’d have to be out of your mind to be content with a 1.0 in anything greater then a go-kart, and surely not be a car enthusiast.

A 1.0 liter 3 cylinder will produce a better and a flatter torque curve than a 4 cylinder, especially with a turbo. The powershift will be too heavy and complex. An automatic will be too heavy too and turn the Fiesta into a 2 cylinder.
Only a manual will work in this car with this engine and, I am wondering, after the Dodge Dart manual thing, if there is more of a market for a 3 pedal than people seem to think?

Eh. 1.0L is tiny man. Sure boosted I have heard it puts out 148pounds of torque. But a bog-standard 2.0L DI engine surpasses that. I guess its about ‘gas mileage.’ But I question if the gas mileage really amounts to anything significant..

If the engine is that small – you will always be in boost – and thus you will not get great gas mileage. I know – I drive an Audi. But I knew going in I wasn’t going to get Prius mileage. Turbos work best for performance. They enable regular size engines to put out AMAZING numbers. They are crappy as gas saving devices though.

Two things. One is the Fiesta is a small car so a 2 liter would be to big. Second, Turbo’s are about pressure differences and as such do not have to be used for “performance”. It is possible to use a turbo to make an engine more efficient and therefore more economical. Low pressure, small turbo’s have been used for a while now to boost low rev performance in smaller engines. This makes them easier to drive (flat torque curve) and vastly improves fuel consumption because there is no need to rev the engine to get performance. High revs are whats bad for consumption. Apply the same thinking of a big, low revving V8 on a MUCH smaller scale ;-)

Then Ford is screwing something up badly with its small Ecoboost engines. Both mileage and acceleration are underwhelming, and even feather-footed Consumer Reports had such a hard time getting advertised fuel economy out of the 1.6 and 2.0 that they devoted an entire “shame on you” article to it.

It scored well on the European MPG test cycle though, which is probably even less indicative of real world performance than the ridiculous tests affiliated with our vapid CAFE standards. The future involves more fuel consumption in miserable penalty boxes, unless the electorate pulls their heads out of their…

I honestly think Ford would have been better off had they stuck with the Mazda 2.5 that’s in the 2009-2012 Mazda 6.

That motor is – as 4 cylinders go – refined (even if the automatic its mated to is a half wit), efficient, and had adequate power and a flat torque curve, while being pretty much bullet proof reliability wise.

Ford could have gleaned extra fuel efficiency from it by adding some now industry standard tricks, like putting in direct injection or mating it to a CVT (I don’t like CVTs and I will remain wary of direct injection until I see a manufacturer produce one that doesn’t catch carbon fouling-itis).

The ecoboost “solution” not only put Ford behind the 8 ball in terms of fuel economy in the real world, but created new reliability issues where they hadn’t existed before.

Evolutionary and consistent incremental improvement of already good foundations is typically a smarter way to play the game than trying to re-create the wheel.

“vastly improves fuel consumption because there is no need to rev the engine to get performance. High revs are whats bad for consumption. Apply the same thinking of a big, low revving V8 on a MUCH smaller scale ;-)”

Vastly? You know the model T got 25 MPG. There is nothing vast about the mileage increase with these turbo engines. There is this science called physics which plots against ICE engines. When driven with alacrity these very small engines just don’t deliver great MPG in the real world .

CAFE standards just mean we will all be driving hybrids/electrics in the future.. Maybe I should invest in a Battery company..

The 1.0 EcoBoost is particularly useful in Europe where CO2 emissions are the basis for EU legislation as well as the various tax environments in the EU countries. It’s 139 g/km of CO2 for the outgoing 1.6 versus 99 g/km for the equally powerful EcoBoost. Imagine how that works out in a country that charges road and/or sales tax on CO2 emissions. I guess the 1.6 works fine in the US where it easily meets CAFE and such.

Apparently Ford thinks the market for compacts with automatics is so small it is the economical choice to offer the American setup (1.6/PowerShift) instead of engineering the 1.0 in such a way it takes a PowerShift.